New figures showing that the number of animals used in laboratories in the EU is on the rise [pdf] are cause for alarm - and not just because of the enormous amount of suffering involved. Continuing to rely upon animal experiments when we have superior research methods available is simply bad public policy.

According to the figures, the number of animals used in experiments increased by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005, even when the additional experiments of the 10 new member states are excluded. More than 12 million animals were used overall, with the UK placing second only to France in numbers used. Britain's own official figures show a consistent trend upwards, and the highest figures since 1992.

Shockingly, despite public concern and claims of tight legislation, the number of animals used in cosmetics tests increased 50%. If even this most universally reviled use of animals is uncontrolled by legislation and the sanction of public disapproval, it is abundantly clear that real action is required. (Cosmetics testing on animals is being gradually ended by the EU's Cosmetics Directive [pdf] but the law governing animal experiments lacks the teeth to do anything about it.)

Numerically, cosmetics tests are a tiny part of the picture, but the failure of existing measures to curb them is a telling symptom of animal experimentation as a whole. Take recent "supermice" stories - hyped examples of genetic manipulation that are manna from heaven for headline writers but classic examples of speculative research, indulging scientific curiosity justified by spurious claims of long-term human benefit. Animal suffering is perpetually justified by the cure round the corner, but decades of animal research on Aids vaccines, strokes, Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis have failed to deliver.

A series of recent studies has highlighted the poor predictability of animal tests. In 2004 a British Medical Journal study concluded that scientific claims on behalf of animal experimentation were largely anecdotal, while one in 2006 revealed that animal experiments predicted human outcomes only in a third of cases studied. Most damningly, US Food and Drug Administration figures show that 92% of drugs which pass animal trials are found to be unsafe or ineffective in human trials and never reach the market.

In safety testing, PETA reviewed more than 500 rodent cancer studies to assess their scientific validity and found that critical public health and worker protection measures were delayed for many years because of misplaced trust in animal tests, which could not easily replicate cancerous effects which had already been documented in humans. About one in every seven rodent cancer studies is judged to be inadequate or to have produced ambiguous results, which are therefore disregarded by health authorities.

The failings of tests such as these are well known in the scientific and regulatory communities but efforts by scientists, companies and official bodies to replace them are often stymied by inertia, bureaucracy and almost criminal apathy. New non-animal toxicity tests must, rightly, be validated to ensure they are reliable and accurate - but that process can take decades and the animal tests themselves have never been scientifically validated. In that process, non-animal techniques are compared with animal tests: the result can be that new techniques which are better at predicting human effects fail to match the inaccurate results of the animal tests and so are judged deficient. The tortuous process of gaining acceptance for non-animal methods is a cross between Kafka and Catch-22.

The permissive approach towards animal experiments must end. The EU law governing animal experimentation is in the process of being revised and will come before MEPs in the next few months. While PETA advocates an immediate end to all animal experiments and will continue to call for a complete ban, we're realists. Measures such as allowing public access to information regarding animal experiments, preventing duplication of tests and, critically, ensuring genuine assessment of studies' possible benefits relative to the suffering involved could make a world of difference to the animals infected, poisoned, genetically manipulated and surgically mutilated in EU labs every year.

At the very least, we must stop casually giving the green light to the bottomless pit of questionable animal tests which delay needed protections, mislead researchers, waste precious resources, and inflict utterly unacceptable suffering on animals.